From c6f6978a55d7dce5209e84e8f81f29efcd22167b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Simon Noetzlin Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2024 10:25:29 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] last changes --- docs/docs/adrs/adr-018-fault-resolutions.md | 51 +++++++++++++-------- 1 file changed, 31 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-) diff --git a/docs/docs/adrs/adr-018-fault-resolutions.md b/docs/docs/adrs/adr-018-fault-resolutions.md index 643ec9c2c5..361069e797 100644 --- a/docs/docs/adrs/adr-018-fault-resolutions.md +++ b/docs/docs/adrs/adr-018-fault-resolutions.md @@ -13,49 +13,59 @@ Proposed ## Context -Partial Set Security ([PSS](./adr-015-partial-set-security.md)) allows a subset of a provider chain's validator set to secure a consumer chain. While this shared security scheme has many advantages, it comes with a pitfall known as the [subset problem](https://informal.systems/blog/replicated-vs-mesh-security#risks-of-opt-in-security-also-known-as-ics-v-2). This problem arises when a malicious majority of validators from the provider chain collude and misbehave on a consumer chain. This threat is particularly relevant for Opt-in chains since they might be secured by a relatively small subset of the provider's validator set. +Partial Set Security ([PSS](./adr-015-partial-set-security.md)) allows a subset of a provider chain's validator set to secure a consumer chain. + While this shared security scheme has many advantages, it comes with a risk known as the + [subset problem](https://informal.systems/blog/replicated-vs-mesh-security#risks-of-opt-in-security-also-known-as-ics-v-2). + This problem arises when a malicious majority of validators from the provider chain collude and misbehave on a consumer chain. + This threat is particularly relevant for Opt-in chains since they might be secured by a relatively small subset of the provider's validator set. In cases of collusion, various types of misbehaviour can be performed by the validators, such as: --Incorrect executions to break the rules of the protocol and steal funds. --Liveness attacks to halt the chain or censor transactions. --Oracle attacks to falsify information used by the chain logic. +- Incorrect executions to break protocol rules in order to steal funds. +- Liveness attacks to halt the chain or censor transactions. +- Oracle attacks to falsify information used by the chain logic. -Currently, these type of attack aren't handled by the protocol, leaving the malicious validators unpunished. +Currently, these type of attack aren't handled in PSS, leaving the malicious validators unpunished. -A potential solution is to use fraud proofs. This technology allows proving incorrect state transitions of a chain without a full node. However, this is a complex technology, and there is no framework that works for Cosmos chains to this day. +A potential solution is to use fraud proofs. This technology allows proving incorrect state transitions of a chain without a full node. + However, this is a complex technology, and there is no framework that works for Cosmos chains to this day. To address this risk in PSS, a governance-gated slashing solution can be used until fraud proof technology matures. -This ADR proposes a fault resolution mechanism, which is a type of governance proposal that victims of faults can use to vote on the slashing of validators that misbehave on Opt-in consumer chains. +This ADR proposes a fault resolution mechanism, which is a type of governance proposal that victims of faults can use to vote on the + slashing of validators that misbehave on Opt-in consumer chains. -In what follows, we describe the implementation of a fault resolution mechanism that handles incorrect executions on consumer chains, as a first iteration. +In what follows, we describe the implementation of a fault resolution mechanism that handles incorrect executions on consumer chains, + as a first iteration. ## Decision -The proposed solution introduces a new `consumer-fault-resolution` governance proposal type to the `provider` module, which allows validators to be penalised for committing faults on an Opt-in consumer chain. +The proposed solution introduces a new `consumer-fault-resolution` governance proposal type to the `provider` module, which allows + validators to be penalised for committing faults on an Opt-in consumer chain. -If such a proposal passes, the proposal handler tombstones all the validators listed in the proposal and slashes them by a predefined amount or the default value used for double-sign infractions. +If such a proposal passes, the proposal handler tombstones all the validators listed in the proposal and slashes them by a predefined + amount or the default value used for double-sign infractions. The proposal has the following fields: --**Description**: This field should be filled with a fault definition describing the type of misbehavior that the validators executed on a Opt-in consumer chain. A fault definition should precisely describe how an attack was performed and why it is eligible as a slashable fault. --**Consumer Chain**: The chain that the fault was related to. --**Validators**: The list of all the validators to be slashed. +- **Description**: This field should be filled with a fault definition describing the type of misbehavior that the validators executed + on a Opt-in consumer chain. A fault definition should precisely describe how an attack was performed and why it is eligible as a slashable fault. +- **Consumer Chain**: The chain that the fault was related to. +- **Validators**: The list of all the validators to be slashed. -In addition, in order to prevent spamming, users are required to pay a fee of `250ATOM` to submit a fault resolution to the provider. +In addition, in order to prevent spamming, users are required to pay a fee of `100ATOM` to submit a fault resolution to the provider. ### validations The submission of a fault resolution fails if any of the following conditions are not met: --the consumer chain is an Opt-in chain --all listed validators were opted-in to the consumer chain in the past unbonding-period --the minimum fee is provided +- the consumer chain is an Opt-in chain +- all listed validators were opted-in to the consumer chain in the past unbonding-period +- the `100ATOM` fee is provided ### additional considerations @@ -67,15 +77,16 @@ to unbond in order to not be punished. ### Positive --Provide the ability to slash and tombstone validators for committing incorrect executions on Opt-in consumer chains. +- Provide the ability to slash and tombstone validators for committing incorrect executions on Opt-in consumer chains. ### Negative --Assuming that malicious validators unbond immediately after misbehaving, a fault resolution has to be submitted within a maximum of two weeks in order to slash the validators. +- Assuming that malicious validators unbond immediately after misbehaving, a fault resolution has to be submitted within a maximum + of two weeks in order to slash the validators. ### Neutral --Fault definitions need to have a clear framework in order to avoid debates about whether or not an attack has actually take place. +- Fault definitions need to have a clear framework in order to avoid debates about whether or not an attack has actually take place. ## References